"We need to get rid of the 16th amendment, and return to the original system that funds government with a variety of tariffs and duties"

Alan Keyes is suggesting a sweeping shift in the United States’ approach to federal taxation. The 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, gave Congress the explicit power to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on the U.S. Census. By calling for its repeal, Keyes advocates for a return to the fiscal model that defined most of American history prior to the 20th century: funding federal operations primarily through tariffs, taxes on imported goods, and duties, rather than direct taxation of individuals’ incomes.

The original system relied on raising government revenue from taxes on goods crossing the nation’s borders, plus excise taxes on certain products and activities. Such a policy was central to both shaping America’s economic development and influencing its relationships with other countries. Supporters of this system have argued that it protected domestic industries, promoted economic independence, and limited the federal government’s financial footprint, thereby constraining its size and role in society. Opponents, however, point out that tariffs can lead to trade wars, higher consumer prices, and regressive effects, disproportionately impacting lower income citizens.

Keyes’ argument reflects a broader desire among some for a smaller, less intrusive federal government, emphasizing personal freedom and economic autonomy. Income taxes, to critics like Keyes, not only invade privacy but also empower the federal government to an extent the Founding Fathers never envisioned. By revoking the 16th Amendment and reinstating tariffs and duties as key revenue sources, proponents contend that government would be forced to live within its means and misconduct would be harder to hide.

Yet, shifting away from the income tax would mark a fundamental realignment of national priorities, potentially reducing federal services or shifting the fiscal burden onto consumption and trade. As global commerce and domestic needs have grown more complex, the debate over the 16th Amendment’s place in American fiscal policy remains highly charged and deeply consequential for the nation’s path forward.